Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Here's something I don't understand: if public funding for abortions is only available to rape and incest survivors, does a woman need to prove that she is in fact a rape or incest survivor before receiving the care and, if so, how does she go about doing so?

Yes, an interesting point.


According to Wikipedia, 1% of abortions were performed for reasons of rape or incest in 2000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Reasons_for_abortions

The rate of rape is extremely difficult to understand, since it is essentially a self-reported crime, but relatively few victims report it, and the conviction rate is low. These last two points are somewhat related.

Wikipeds says...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States_of_America#Rape_statistics

I couldn’t find any information on how raped women are required to prove it in order to get a free abortion.

Id rather have the tax payers pay for a 13 y/o girl to have an abortion then to keep her pregnant. Im sorry, but I was barely (and I mean BARELY) able to provide for my son when he was born, and I was 20.

Thats really a scary thing for them to try and pull

I pose the question because if there is some kind of proof requirement then there will have to be a definition of the thing to be proven -- in which case you would need to rely on the state criminal codes. And what else would be needed? A conviction? This can't be the case. Even if we might not need to know exactly who (as a matter of law) the rapist is, how are we going to declare whether a girl has been raped? What doctor is going to be able to say to a woman who claims to have been raped "no, you weren't." The idea that publicly funded abortions could be limited to survivors of rape and incest is farcical. Anyone can claim to be pregnant as a result of rape, in which case anyone can have a publicly-funded abortion. So much for a "narrow exception."

Oh god I didnt think of incest on that one. Seriously, under what they are wanting to pass, most incest rapes are not forced, it usually just happens. And according to this that girl would have to pay for it?

It's also silly because convictions can take several months in some cases; it wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility for the baby to have been born before it is officially proven that a rape took place.

@MR: Mentioning convictions was just puffery on my part. When someone is raped, we don't have to know who raped them to know that they were raped.

But what do we have to know in order to know -- for the purposes of meeting the requirements for a publicly funded abortion -- that they were raped? Who decides that a pregnant woman was raped and how?

@KingC: The trouble with "forcible" in this (legal) context is that it doesn't mean anything at all yet, not that it necessarily means violent or whatever definition we'd give it in everyday conversation.

Manchu wrote:I pose the question because if there is some kind of proof requirement then there will have to be a definition of the thing to be proven -- in which case you would need to rely on the state criminal codes. And what else would be needed? A conviction? This can't be the case. Even if we might not need to know exactly who (as a matter of law) the rapist is, how are we going to declare whether a girl has been raped? What doctor is going to be able to say to a woman who claims to have been raped "no, you weren't." The idea that publicly funded abortions could be limited to survivors of rape and incest is farcical. Anyone can claim to be pregnant as a result of rape, in which case anyone can have a publicly-funded abortion. So much for a "narrow exception."

I completely understand what you mean. I can only imagine that only alleged victims who have reported being raped are eligible for the subsidy, and they probably have to present with rape symptoms. The authorities then wait six weeks, give a pregnancy test and offer an abortion if necessary. Something like that.

The proportion of publicly funded abortions is only 1% of the total anyway, so it's not like a large number of women are taking unfair advantage of the situation.

Perhaps it would be better to pass a federal law to ban all states from funding any abortions, and to ban states from banning abortions. That way the pro-life people can't complain about their tax dollars funding abortions, and the pro-choice peoples' choice is guaranteed. Charities can step in to fund abortions or childhood as their conscience suggests.

Then give the "morning after" pill to rape victims if they want it. You can buy it over the counter for £6.99 in the UK.

Just to be clear: My criticism is not aimed at what is proposed in this bill but rather at what already exists. Opponents of publicly funding abortions have every right to be concerned about the current rape and incest exception -- as far as I can see, without benefit of every having tried to get public funding for an abortion under this exception -- because it seems like a pretty obvious loophole.

Also, KingC, about the word "forcible" look at the example from the article:

This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion.

Why the hell should any taxpayer need to fund the abortion of a preganancy that resulted from a consensual-in-fact (if not law) sexual act?

As MGS noted earlier, it seems to be about how you phrase the question: "Would you deny Suzy, a thirteen-year-old penniless runaway who is pregnant because her father repeatedly raped her, the money she needs to avoid paying for her father's crimes?" Contrast this to, "Seventeen-year-old Suzy's eighteen-year-old, unemployed boyfriend, who she has dated and with whom she has been sexually active for several years, got her pregnant and she just doesn't feel like having a child right now."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:I can only imagine that only alleged victims who have reported being raped are eligible for the subsidy, and they probably have to present with rape symptoms. The authorities then wait six weeks, give a pregnancy test and offer an abortion if necessary. Something like that.

But if this is the case, then the people who most need the benefit are not getting served. That explains the 1% rate -- which, as you point out, means it's hard to believe that many people are currently gaming the system (or it could indicate the opposite!) -- but it also means that the current exception is ineffective.

Perhaps it would be better to pass a federal law to ban all states from funding any abortions, and to ban states from banning abortions.

States cannot currently ban (assuming you mean "illegalize") abortions.

I'm for the disambiguation of the term rape (which is a catchall term for virtually any sex crime at this point, it's harmful to the functionality of the laws involving it's use.) but this bill is full of holes. I'd rather have a good and comprehensive rewrite of the terminology rather then a hackneyed attempt like this.

I strongly agree with Shuma and would point out that the level of government traditionally competent to write such definitions is the state.

Whereas I believe that leaving some issues (like civil rights) up to the individual states leaves large proportions of our country's citizenry without access to needed care or justice. Some states and regions have made abortion and family planning care extremely difficult to obtain as it is.

@Mannahnin: The term "state" does not refer to some group of oligarchs exepmt from the democratic process -- at least, no moreso than the term "federal" does. If the majority of the people in a given state do not want to fund any abortions than they should not have to do so.

Manchu wrote:Just to be clear: My criticism is not aimed at what is proposed in this bill but rather at what already exists. Opponents of publicly funding abortions have every right to be concerned about the current rape and incest exception -- as far as I can see, without benefit of every having tried to get public funding for an abortion under this exception -- because it seems like a pretty obvious loophole.

Also, KingC, about the word "forcible" look at the example from the article:

This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion.

Why the hell should any taxpayer need to fund the abortion of a preganancy that resulted from a consensual-in-fact (if not law) sexual act?

As MGS noted earlier, it seems to be about how you phrase the question: "Would you deny Suzy, a thirteen-year-old penniless runaway who is pregnant because her father repeatedly raped her, the money she needs to avoid paying for her father's crimes?" Contrast this to, "Seventeen-year-old Suzy's eighteen-year-old, unemployed boyfriend, who she has dated and with whom she has been sexually active for several years, got her pregnant and she just doesn't feel like having a child right now."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:I can only imagine that only alleged victims who have reported being raped are eligible for the subsidy, and they probably have to present with rape symptoms. The authorities then wait six weeks, give a pregnancy test and offer an abortion if necessary. Something like that.

But if this is the case, then the people who most need the benefit are not getting served. That explains the 1% rate -- which, as you point out, means it's hard to believe that many people are currently gaming the system (or it could indicate the opposite!) -- but it also means that the current exception is ineffective.

Perhaps it would be better to pass a federal law to ban all states from funding any abortions, and to ban states from banning abortions.

States cannot currently ban (assuming you mean "illegalize") abortions.

Perhaps a constitutional amendment enshrining the right to abortion, then?

I am aware that states are not allowed to raise "undue" obstacles to abortion, thanks to some case I read about but can't remember the name or date. (Not Roe vs Wade.) Certain "due" obstacles have been raised, of course.

However an Amendment would seem to be a good way of stopping right wing nutters from constantly trying to roll things back.

Manchu wrote:@Mannahnin: The term "state" does not refer to some group of oligarchs exepmt from the democratic process -- at least, no moreso than the term "federal" does. If the majority of the people in a given state do not want to fund any abortions than they should not have to do so.

I'm not particularly convinced that state legislation concerning sex law terminology is particularly more effective then national legislation. If anything it's far more likely to be beholden to the special interests of individual constituencies.

KK wrote:Perhaps a constitutional amendment enshrining the right to abortion, then?

It is already the law of the land and even all the "right wing nutters" in the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court for the last several decades have not been able to (or really wanted to) roll it back. Despite how you guys must hear the soundbites in Old Blighty, the right to abortion is not a seriously contested in the US. Public funding of abortion is another matter.

@Shuma: I don't think special interests are particularly more effective at the state level than at the federal.

Manchu wrote:If the majority of the people in a given state do not want to fund any abortions than they should not have to do so.

I disagree. Based in part on Roe v. Wade and based in part on my preferred level of socialized medicine.

@Mannahnin: I'm a strong proponent of the healthcare reform bill. I can stand the abortion exceptions to tackle the greater problems. But we're not really addressing that balance in this thread. Now the issue is whether Democrats (like myself) can stomach some modification of the abortion exceptions in order to tackle the greater problems. It helps, in my case, that I also feel that abortion (or rather, the termination of preganancies for non-medical reasons) is a social evil -- yes, it's a symptom of more radical social evils but it is also itself a social evil.

ITT Old(?) white dudes discuss something that could never possibly affect them.

@Chongara: You have an exceedingly narrow definition of "affect."

I am disgusted. I'm glad I live in the Constitution State.

I'm not a Democrat, and I would prefer that no abortions were ever necessary, but I believe they are a necessary option and women everywhere need and deserve the ability to obtain them, even if the majority of the voters of their state disagree.

I believe that all people should have the right to necessary medical care, even if unable to pay for it themselves, and that abortion sometimes is necessary.

I also believe in Dr. George Tiller's reminder that we should "trust women". It's a cute little piece of rhetoric to say that if men could get pregnant, abortion would be explicitly enshrined as a right in the Constitution, but I don't think it's at all far from the truth.

I'm not at all in favor of conflating the phrase "necessary" with "medically necessary," even for the sake of catchy slogans.

Manchu wrote:@Chongara: You have an exceedingly narrow definition of "affect."

Abortions are strictly a women's issue. Accessibility of health care disproportionally affects minorities. White males are about as far removed from this issue as a group can be. It's like martians wanting to have an opinion on our envriomental issues.

Pure hogwash. This is like hearing that estate taxes are strictly a millionaire's issue.

Manchu wrote:I'm not at all in favor of conflating the phrase "necessary" with "medically necessary," even for the sake of catchy slogans.

Fair enough. In all honesty I think that it can be necessary without being medically necessary, and I think that the more-just course (out of multiple imperect options) in that event is to still allow at least limited funding of it via government provided programs, as with other necessary medical care.

I personally agree with you Mannahnin, especially about trying to find the best of bad options. The very first step towards getting there is understanding what the opposition is concerned about instead of hand-waving it away or jumping straight to the compassionate v. heartless rhetoric.

State's can't make abortion illegal; however, they can make the process to get one nearly as traumatic for the woman as the rape that caused the pregnancy. Case in point, the beautiful state that I live in enacted a law in 2010:
"Though other states have passed similar measures requiring women to have ultrasounds, Oklahoma’s law goes further, mandating that a doctor or technician set up the monitor so the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for rape and incest victims."

Another law requires women to complete a lengthy questionaire before the procedure and places them on an internet database:
"The questionnaire doesn't include the woman's name or "any information specifically identifying the patient," but it does ask for age, race, level of education, marital status, number of previous pregnancies, and the county in which the abortion was performed, information which opponents of the bill argue would be enough to identify a woman in a small town."

This is the type of hogwash one can expect in a red state.

agnosto wrote:"Though other states have passed similar measures requiring women to have ultrasounds, Oklahoma’s law goes further, mandating that a doctor or technician set up the monitor so the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for rape and incest victims."

That is certainly a traumatic experience. I think it highlights the evil that pervades the entire matter. Women should be educated about what an abortion actually entails, including that it is the violent termination of life. It's truly difficult, however, to support this kind of thing -- which seems tantamount to punishment if not torture. Sidewalk counciling, undertaken by responsible and trained individuals, is a better option -- especially since it is not government-funded.

Even so, this law is not really on-topic.

Actually I think it's a fair point to bring up, given that folks have espoused leaving legislation and funding of this matter up to the states.